Hiya Maggie...Welcome Bertil and all.
Hiya Maggie...Welcome Bertil and all.
I'm another M8 owner who just bought the GRD2 and really enjoy having a high quality pocket camera with me at all times. I've been following the thread at its original location quite closely, and I'm glad it found a home here. Thanks guys!
Thank you guys
OK...I hope GRD I images are permitted here, and that I post the link correctly. This is only my second posting here; but, I'm hoping to make GetDPI.com forums my new 'home', as I already can tell I like the company. Anyway, enough of my babbling; here's some pics (CC always welcome):
Thanks and take care.
Last edited by Mark Turney; 7th December 2007 at 13:02.
Mark you can post right in the thread . I also should show you folks a cool trick too . if you load a image in the gallery you find the image you want to show folks than click on it you will see a BB code just copy that and you can post that in your thread post or anywhere on the internet and it links to your gallery image.
Here is a sample
Or you can simple load from your desktop like you would do with manage attachments. Like this
Or another example in the Gallery you can copy the Direct link code and do this
Just some cool ways to post images . Okay sorry to interrupt. The Gallery is a unique software we added and has a lot of tricks you have 20mg's of Free space in there for regular members and you can upgrade too
You bet , Guys we all love to see images so please post them anywhere you want . This IS a photo forum, what's better than images right.
Finally! I tried to link an image in the darkroom forum on photo.net and it would not even let you display it. I was shocked! I thought it was a photo forum.
Anyway, Mark, that photo on the right is fantastic. I love the tonality and sharpness. I recommended a GRD to my father not long after it came out, and he absolutely loves it. He is an amateur who used to use Leica and Canon, and now the only thing he wants to use is a GRD. I tried to get him interested in the 5D, but he wanted none of it. Just the GRD. It really is impressive how well the camera draws despite the small sensor.
That color shot of NYC is really attractive. I'd like to see more color work from this camera.
i love Ricoh (and the GRD's in particular) to death -- otherwise i would not have bought a second -- but i do think there may be something to the variance that people are seeing in their images. granted, most people are more knowledgeable than i and would have realised this before i did. your GX100 shots are stunning (not nearly the difference i saw), but perhaps Sean is right?
i've turned people on to the GRD with shots from the II that i never did (but should have) from the original. mostly because of you (but also Iansky), i thought the GX100 was inferior. it would be nice to know what the reality is when forced to recommend to friends who want the zoom. i know Sean's coming out with a review (hurry!), but still. you're more intimate with the GRD and GX100 than most.
p.s. Paris misses you.
Thanks for the nice comment Stuart. I assume you mean the image of the girl smiling; I love that one too. Had I actually planned that shot, I would have placed the two women in the left, lower part of the frame facing right....I think it would improved the composition. But, to be honest, it was a 'snap shot' - jpeg straight from the camera.
And that's with a hasselblad. But I just mean the general tonality and "feel" to the image seems akin. I don't know what it is. Perhaps just the city location, but regardless, it is an excellent capture.
Thanks also Maggie. Here's another color shot (high ISO) that I like from the GRD:
That one's nice too, Mark.
I must say, the GRD II is making me think about leaving my beloved D-Lux 3.
I've signed up for this forum today - and I allready love it;-)
Here's af pic from my GRD.
BTW Maggie - my shots are from the GRD model I, not II. Just wanted to clarify.
Thanks for the comments.
cam wrote: "please keep them coming!" - Okay here's another (still GRD).
Have a great day.
What I do find, however, is that one's eye tends to be drawn to the brightest parts of a picture so if a highlight is blown, that tendency of the eye is worth considering, worth using compositionally, in fact.
Sometimes the blown highlights can be intentional as in the following picture, which I've posted before, and which is one of my favourites because I feel it expresses the loneliness and alienation of living in a huge, hot city, somewhat in a manner of an Edvard Munch painting, (although I'm not claiming the same quality). The blown out highlight around the woman are intentionally induced in post-processing, as is the heightened contrast, to express the bright light and heat:
GX100 ISO 400 EV -0.3 RAW
Gosh folks, I don't know why, but I lost my train of thought on this topic.
Rather than try to move all those old post and images from the forum that shall be nameless but whose initials begin with The Leica Users Forum, I'm going to just try to pick up where I left off on the technical stuff.
Sean and David were a big help in getting me to a useful PP scheme on this camera. I had a GRD, but spent little time on it and never really much liked it. The II is a whole different kettle of fish for me and the ISO 800 images, printed to 13 x 19 and 16 x 20, are unbelievably good. Chrominance noise reduction before RAW conversion and careful control of sharpening in both ACR and PS are producing wonderful images. I am also using a different tonal curve and chromatic curve for the BW conversion than those I use with the M8. This has also helped a lot.
What I have below, in order, are the full frame shot with the new PP approaches, as well as 100 and 50 percent crops of the same image. In the 100 crop you can still see a peculiar structure to the image in the face, though this is not visible, even in the 16 x 20 printing. David described it as looking like reticulation, which is pretty much what it looks like.
I've added a forth image, the 100% crop of the old workflow, which shows the artifacts more clearly.
Remember that this is an ISO 800 image, which I find quite remarkable. Even with a big boost in contrast and more USM wide-radius than I've used, Mitch might find this image too smooth. I like having this option if I want it.
Since we're dealing with new cameras (the GX100 and GRD II) perhaps it would be a good idea with each picture to state not only the camera but also the ISO speed, EV and whether it's from RAW or JPG.
I also wanted to take off on something else I had started on the nameless forum, which is that, for me, in many ways the GRD II is more like a film Leica with Tri-X than the M8 is. The M8 has gotten off on this medium format thing (and a lot of people seem to want that and talk about it as image "quality" rather than "character") and I'm just not interested. It is not just the image character that I am referring to in the M4/GRD comparison, it is the handling of the camera and the way people relate to it out in public. For those who haven't used one, the M8 is not a svelte handler, it is a bit of a clunker in my experience. Sean disagrees with me, but I find the handling of the GRD much better than that of the M8.
On the other issue of comparison, the GRD, compared to the M8, makes me invisible to people I am photographing to an amazing extent. In thinking why this is so dramatic, I realized that when I shot with the M4s, that was a typical sized camera you'd see tourists with. Today the M8 is a distinctly large camera and the GR-D puts me back in with the tourists. So, this is a huge advantage to me. A few months ago, I was "detained" by sheriff deputies in an airport for taking photographs with the M8. Last week, I was in the same airport and photographed two deputies (standing by the check-in security equipment, no less) multiple times with the GRD. They smiled at me. And I smiled back.
When I shot with M4s, I often tried smaller cameras, not to be less conspicuous, because that wasn't a problem, but for convenience. These small cameras included a few of the little Rolleis with the two dials on front, the collapsible lens and the upside down film; the plastic Olympus XA; and a couple of small, earlier Olympus auto exposure 35s. The image quality of the Rolleis was always a disappointment to me, the Olympuses were somewhat better, but I always ended up using the M4s just because of image quality. The GRD II is head and shoulders above an M4 with Tri-X in it. I think--but I need more experience with the II--that it will replace my M8s, which I really don't like and have had incredible trouble with. I have a second GRD II body for permanent mount of the 40 when it arrives, and I plan a spare or two. (The M8 has made me literally paranoid on the subject of reliability.)
The photograph below is a recent ISO 200 image from the II. I'm looking forward to getting back to photography after a couple of weeks of goofing around learning the PP issues for the camera. The GRD II has been very liberating for me after a year of struggles and toil with the M8 problems.
P.S. I've just noticed that these images look much better when you click on them. Maybe the Leica forum was always like that and I never noticed.
Last edited by Sean_Reid; 7th December 2007 at 19:33.
I just bought a GR II to pocket even when my M8 is to big. Its small and easy to use. I'll post some pictures when I figure out how to post pictures.
website under construction
But, so far, I think the two Ricoh cameras I've reviewed have the best designed controls of any compact small sensor cameras I've tested. I do like them very much and think they have much to offer. And fortunately, we can appreciate their strengths without needing to run down the strengths of any other cameras. <G>
About the aspect ratio of the image: For me there is a lot of importance in the relative height and width of the image - I think it changes everything.
Plus, painting aside, I associate the 35mm format with a totally different aesthetic - and when I pointed out that the GRII was using what has become the standard digital proportion I was, by extension, pointing out that Leica was trying to hold onto the 35mm rangefinder aesthetic by keeping that proportion, yet in the context of the thread what was being established was the opposite - the Ricoh was for some people a more suitable heir to the Leica rangefinder tradition.
About your personal ideas of photographs and expressivity: You may be right and I won't argue with you, but I think Garry Winogrand makes a very well stated case for how you might be wrong about your ideas of what a photograph is and isn't capable of and I think you should at least be aware of it if you aren't already. You can view an excerpt of him discussing what he calls "the picture problem" in this video: http://www.jimarnold.org/downloads/winogrand/ and you can Google "winogrand interviews" and come up with a lot more to read, if you are interested in it.
Last edited by dlw; 7th December 2007 at 21:35.
Sean and others,
So let me try to "run down" the Ricoh to keep things in balance. I've little experience with autofocus and I'm normally just zone focusing the Ricoh, which seems to work just fine. But I like the idea of the "electric rangefinder" using the function switch to go into auto focus and then locking that into the manual mode by pushing the FN switch again. But when I auto focus with the Ricoh and then lock it, the manual focus scale seems to show almost random numbers--in a test just now, five meters on something that was about a meter away and then when I moved ten cm closer, suddenly half a meter, etc. Both my cameras do this and, as a matter of fact they don't at all agree on focus judging by what they show on the manual scale. Is this just something that doesn't work? I have an intuition, without quite being able to confirm it (other than visually on the camera LCD), that the autofocus is working, but the manual focus scale is not. The manual focus scale does seem to work when using it manually (though it jumps oddly and will only land at certain spots), but not when coming from autofocus with the presumably locked measurement.
Last edited by Walt; 7th December 2007 at 21:25.
To me the big difference between how people react to my M6 and my GRD is mainly because I bring the M6 up to my eye to look through the viewfinder while I just hold the GRD away from my face to frame with the LCD; the size of the cameras does matter in that the GRD is so small that it makes me look like a tourist. I cannot believe that people will react differently to an M8 vs an M4 because the M8 is only a few millimeters thicker, and perhaps a millimeter of so taller, so to a bystander there is no difference. Now, for the photographer, the few millimeter difference is another matter: wen I picked up the M8 in my hands I was, indeed, surprised that it felt klunkier because of these few millimeters; but I'm sure that after a few days shooting I would get used to it and wouldn't think about it again.
I think it's worth discussing, if not arguing. The trouble is that I don't think that I've said much about photography except that I try to make expressive — and I generally prefer to let the photographs speak for themselves. I've seen the Winogrand video and don't see how it counters my ideas about photography...
I offered to post some test images but the weather here is really bad today so all I have done is some very boring shots just for the purpose of looking at noise. I set each camera up the same and used the same setting for all of them in Photoshop to convert to jpg. Only thing I maybe should have done is use manual exposure, which I didn't, so there is some variation there. Please excuse the lack of creativity, they aren't really worthy of posting in this thread. Hope they are of use.
I see little difference between the ISO 400 images of the GX100 and the GRD2 concerning noise. Did you use auto WB for both cameras? I've read that the GRD has an intriguing auto WB that can create stunning colors at low light (almost like cross processing). See the images of Nacoki on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nacoki/...7594061269305/). The GX has a more accurate WB. Could the GRD2 be more in line with the GX100? Can users of both cameras acknowledge that?
Thanks for the effort, Will. I've looked at them at some length, ignoring the colour differences, and also grain, but trying to see the the rendition of textures. Looking at only the ISO400 shots what I see — or what I think I see, in case I'm just following my earlier conclusion — is that the GRD and GRD2 shots, ignoring the fact that the grain of the latter is finer, show a similarly crisp rendition of the textures, while the GX100 rendition is substantially softer. It also seems to me that the GRD2 has the best dynamic range.
I'l be interested to see what others conclude.
The white balance was so inconsitent that I set them all to use the same WB in photoshop before converting to jpg. I'd be happy to do it again without if you like but I felt that most people would use manual wb in real life anyway. Out of the four images the closest out of camera auto wb was the ISO 200 GRD file, the worst was the GRD2 file .
i love love love the GRD II, but i will be more than happy to get the original back as well. the GRD II is way more delicate, at least to my mind, in the ways you can manipulate the photos. also, for bright light it's a no brainer -- the original is the way to go. most of my initial observations from your pics still stand, by the way. (except i was wrong on the second pic being closer to the GRD. the first was, indeed, more reminiscent. i was just enthralled with the silky blacks which seem to be much easier to obtain on the II.)
i was lemming the GRD II, all along to test the 21mm lens when i go to Normandie. the light will be low so a high ISO is a necessity. i personally wouldn't mind getting a few exquisite shots! maybe i willed my original to die so i had an excuse to have both? and you thought i had restraint -- so i starve for the rest of the month.... will make a better silhouette
anyways, a question to all on the AUTO-HI option. it defaults on 400, but you can set it up to 800 or even 1600. does this mean it will automatically choose to shoot at the higher level or does it just give the camera a wider berth to use?
For me it all depends on whether you are shooting color or B+W. I could see why some would stick with film in B+W and if I was shooting B+W exclusively I could see dumping my M8 and using a GRD for the sorts of photography the M was originaly designed for. But I do mostly color and when I went to color I switched to MF rangefinders because the mushy grain of color dyes was nothing like the sharp silver grain of B+W. I suppose the M8 maybe more Mamiya 7 then M4 which if you shoot color is not a bad thing but if you want a digital M4 TriX and Rodinal replacement maybe not so much.
The other thing the M8 gives you in B+W if you are shooting events for pay is more leeway in the image. If you need to crop or salvage an image out of poor lighting the M8 image files are your friend. A small sensor camera could be very unforgiving in those circumstances.
I think eventually we will get the best of both worlds for color or B+W as the GRD develops or maybe from a camera like the Sigma DP1 - maybe even Leica will bring out a small M or M like camera. I'd like to be able to have color masters that I could use if I wanted color and I think the small sensor cameras are not nearly as effective as they are for B+W when the end product is color.
So given all that, there really is not an alternative for me to the M8. I'm with Sean that it is the best handling digital yet but to put that in perspective that's not a very high bar to clear if your preference is manual focusing rangefinders.